Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 64 (PNJ)

Haryana State v. Basti Ram

2002-01-10

ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA

body2002
JUDGMENT Ashutosh Mohunta, J. (Oral) - The State of Haryana has filed the present regular second appeal against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Bhiwani dated 19.5.1980 whereby the appeal of the plaintiff-respondent was accepted and it was held that the property left behind by Data Ram would not escheat to the State of Haryana. 2. Briefly, the facts are that Basti Ram, Plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is the owner in possession of the suit land situated in village Umrawas. He claimed to be the grandson of Data Ram, the original owner. The following predigree table is necessary to appreciate the facts of the case :- on the basis of this pedigree table, it was contended by the plaintiff that he is a collateral of Data Ram. Jokhi Ram had two sons, Data Ram and Bishna, and Bishna had two sons, Mauji and Hanwant. The plaintiff is the son of Mauji Ram. It is alleged that half share of the estate left by Data Ram, who died issueless and without a widow, was mutated in favour of Mauji Ram in the year 1942. After the death of Data Ram, the other half share of the estate of Data Ram was escheated to the State of Jind. It is in respect of this land which stood escheated, that the present suit had been filed on the ground that the plaintiff is in continuous possession of the suit land as co-sharer and that he being within the prescribed degree of succession, was entitled to claim ownership to the land left behind by Data Ram. The respondent-State of Haryana controverted the averments of the plaintiff-respondent. It was contended that the plaintiff had not right to succeed to the property left behind by Data Ram deceased. It was contended that the estate of Data Ram deceased could not devolve on a collateral beyond third degree, as per the law of erstwhile Jind State and, thus, the land of Data Ram rightfully escheated to the State. 3. Thus, the whole case revolves around the various judicial circulars of Jind State with regard to succession. The trial Court vide its judgment dated 16.8.1978 dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. However, the appeal was accepted by the learned District Judge, Bhiwani vide judgment dated 19.5.1980. It is against this judgment that the present appeal has been filed. 3. Thus, the whole case revolves around the various judicial circulars of Jind State with regard to succession. The trial Court vide its judgment dated 16.8.1978 dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. However, the appeal was accepted by the learned District Judge, Bhiwani vide judgment dated 19.5.1980. It is against this judgment that the present appeal has been filed. Circular No. 24 dated 11.8.1900, circular No. 30 and circular No. 275 are the relevant circulars for this purpose, which are reproduced as under : Circular No. 24 dated 11.8.1900 Dying issueless, abscondance, gift, mortgage and mutation of civil decree, the extract from the order of special meeting of the Honble Raja Ranvir Singh of Jind state : 1. xx xx xx xx 2. In the aforesaid conditions if the right holder dies issueless or renounces the world and if the heir within 7 degrees proves his death or factum of his having renounced the world or one of these facts is established on investigation according to law, then without waiting for the lapse of the limitation for settlement, the estate will be mutated in the name of such heir. Circular No. 30 This is under Section (3) Circular No. 15 of 1882. It is required that minors and the widow may be given due consideration and, therefore, as a matter of clarification of the above section, it is ordered as under which should be complied with punctually and faithfully : a) If a right holder dies issueless, his heirs except the heirs upto 3rd degree who seek permission to possess the land will be entitled to their right of succession on deposit of stamp duty at the rate of Rs. 1.50% of the value of the property and will then remain in possession. b to d) xx xxx xxx xxx e) if any heir of the third degree is in possession of the property of a deceased issueless right holder, without filing the stamp duty the Government can charge stamp duty twice from such heir and he can also be punished by an executive order. Circular No. 275 For the purpose of counting the degrees in a pedigree-table, a clear Rule has to be laid down in order to facilitate the heirs. Circular No. 275 For the purpose of counting the degrees in a pedigree-table, a clear Rule has to be laid down in order to facilitate the heirs. Therefore, it is ordered that in counting the degrees the following Rule be followed : "While counting the degrees the common ancestor as well as the deceased will be counted. All the defendants of the common ancestor would have a right to succeed to the estate of the deceased subject to the condition that the deceased and the common ancestor are situated within 7 degrees. The degrees will be counted from the deceased to the common ancestor. The degree of the claimants will not be debatable. It is clear that if the deceased is situated more than 7 degrees apart from the common ancestor then no claimant although he may be within 7 degrees from the right holder, will have any right of any inheritance." In my considered opinion provisions of circular No. 24 are applicable to the facts of the present case. Circular No. 24 (ibid) provides that heirs upto the 7th degree would have a right in the property of a deceased who dies issueless. A perusal of the pedigree table clearly shows that plaintiff Basti Ram was entitled to succeed to the estate of Data Ram to the extent of half share because the other half share had to go to Hanwant as he was within the 7 degrees of succession from Data Ram. The argument was raised by the learned State counsel with regard to the suit having been filed after the period of limitation. In the present case, the plaintiff came to know that the land in dispute has been allotted to Harijan Society and he filed a suit for declaration immediately thereafter and hence the suit filed by the plaintiff- respondent was not beyond the period of limitation. 4. In view of the above discussion, I hold that the plaintiff-respondent Basti Ram is the owner in possession of the suit land. As per judicial circular No. 24 as applicable to the State of Jind at the relevant time he was entitled to inherit the estate of Data Ram and Bishna to the extent of half share. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the State is dismissed with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.